Buying the latest!

One of the comments I hear most of all, is that waiting a few months will result in yet another, 'better' digital camera being introduced, which will be potentially better than all that went before it!

I do wonder whether this is not actually counter productive. Underwater photography is in essence about actually getting in the water and taking photographs! There have been many posts on wetpixel about favourite photographers yet very few (if any) criticisms of the images they took because of the technology available to them. Indeed some of the best known photographs ever taken were not technically perfect.

Will a good 6 MPixel camera available today still produce good 6MPixel images in 5 years time? Will the MPixels be ever increased? Is it in fact even necessary to increase the MPixel count significantly.

We can already take stunningly good images with today's cameras! Is anyone satisfied with the equipment they have now?

I posted a similar question on a Pro Photographer's Digital Forum, and got a few positive responses as well as one saying that the question may be relevant but was not what the forum was about. Does this apply underwater I wonder?

Hi Paul, this is a good topic for discussion. I am very satisfied with my equipment, and I think that now that the dSLRs are approaching (if not surpassing) film quality, more people are going to be satisfied with theirs. I really expect a slow down in MPixels, at a relatively stable 15-20mp. After that I bet cameras will keep evolving, just like they did back in the film days. What I mean is, the D3 will have better AF and metering than the D2x but not necessarily better resolution. If there was no digital, I would still be using my F100 and would have no desire to upgrade to an F6.

The real question is, would you be satisfied with your camera if you had an 8mp dRebel instead of your 1ds?

I do think that todays digital cameras are sufficeintly good that most people should be satisfyed with them untill they break. I know when I bought my rebel I planned on using it for 5 or 6 years. It was stolen so I was forced to buy a new camera but I now plan on using my 5D for a long time.

I think that especially underwater photographers should not attempt to allways have the latest/greatest camera. It is just too expensive to house a new camera every 18 months.

But at the same time it is too expensive not to buy the best. I would not recomend buying a housing for anything but the newest camera. It is not cost effective. Housing for a new camera costs the same as an old camera. Compare a 10D rig with a 20D rig. $5000 vs $5400 (you save 500 on the camera but the housing is the same). The 20D is a 2 year younger camera so lets say you would be able to use it 2 years longer than the 10D. Say you could get 5 years out of a 20D. Thus you would get 3 years out of the 10D.

So the 20D costs you 1100 a year while the 10D costs you 1700 a year.

Great topic Paul! I get questions at EVERY HUPS.org meeting about this very topic.

The question of "When is my camera good enough for my needs" varies from person to person, because everyone has a different budget and uses their photos differently.

I have coral bleaching photos from Fiji taken in 2000 that are in high demand, but sadly were taken with a Coolpix 990, so they are noisy 3-megapixel images. I could probably get a lot more sales if they were taken with a better camera.

Last year offshore, I used a 14 megapixel ProSLRn - which was full frame and let me crop a landscape photo to a vertical and still have a 3000 x 2000 6-megapixel image. I sold a lot of those photos to contractors who blew them up to 6' tall for their booths at the Offshore Technology Conference. Would a 6-megapixel camera have cut it? It's hard to say, I think it was worth selling the S2pro and adopting the Kodak.

On the other hand, if I had a D70s and a housing, I'm not sure I'd upgrade to the D200. Going from 6 to 10 megapixels isn't a huge jump. Most of us use the camera in a housing, so the difference in build quality is marginal. Most of us only use the center autofocus sensor underwater as well, and I think the D70s and D200 will have similar AF performance using the center sensor only.

So - to answer your question Paul - when is the right time to upgrade? You decide...:-)

Cheers

James

good topic. I have a d70 which is my first digital camera. I love the pics ive taken with it. they are everything i could want. With my home system i can go to 13 x 19, with good results. i recently got a d2x. the shots ive taken above water with it are amazing. i could crop, and blowup up an eyeball, and it would look amazing. But, when it comes down to buying a housing for it i question whether its worth the money. i have a nexus system, and the housing is big bucks. What do i want from the photos? they are for personal consumption. will the d2x make me a better photographer? do i need to blow up huge pictures? Im sure side by side i could see the "quality" diference. Is it worth it to me and my wallet? questions, questions. find the light and put something in it, record it, enjoy it

Like James, my students ask me the same question all the time!

I generally agree with what others have said in this thread, but I would add that the right time to change is when you find yourself limited by the camera.

If your creative or artistic abilities cannot express themselves because of technical limitations in the camera (poor handling of highlights, long shutter lag, slow x-sync speed, whatever else), then you should change.

Cheers,

Mat

I am about to put this factor into play. The EBay effect. In the past when you upgraded equipment the old item sat and collected dust. Now you can sell these items to recoup some of your investment, which was nowhere as easy in the past. It's also a source of "recently" new items.

Rest assured, camera companies will come up with new reasons to buy more of their product! It may not be MP in the future, DR may become the new litmus test, just not as easy to quantify. One must assess ones needs and whether what they have fulfills them given costs etc. If the upgrade consists of re-cycling the same body as Canon and Nikon have done with certain bodies, then one can update while retaining their UW housing. The older cam makes a good BU or cam for topside use etc. B)

Tom

"the right time to change is when you find yourself limited by the camera"

I do like this statement! It made me wonder what would actually make me consider changing my camera. I don't see MPixels doing so for a long time - some lenses are not up to the sensor I use currently. Handling and functionality - again not a huge issue - I'm happy with how everything works. About the only things I can think of are greater bit depth, perhaps an auto clean function on the sensor (!) and vastly increased battery life.

New products (like the D200) are interesting and offer upgrades to those who 'need' to move up from a lower specified camera, but generally, I suspect, only if the timing is right. For underwater use, both the D200 and 5D will offer a high spec 'entry camera' no doubt.

I find that there is an enormous amount of interest in new products, but the bottom line remains the image, and this seems to get forgotten far too often. A really good image will still overcome its technical limitations! (I saw some of the original footage shot on the first moon landing the other day - it is not of significant quality by today's standards but is so fascinating and evocative of the time that it really doesn't matter).

Excellent topic for discussion, and one that was in my mind recently after seeing how many of the Wildlife Photograper of the Year images were taken with cameras most people here would reject (and I am not just talking about the film ones).

And I include myself in this. I think you would have a lot of difficulty persuading me to shoot a D100 underwater these days - yet my own pictures taken with that camera are reproduced very nicely in the competition book, and even on a massive dipplay print on the outside of the Natural History Museum in London. So I think I am wrong about this.

Alex

Alex -- take a photo of your print on the building so we can post it on the front page here!

On the other hand, if I had a D70s and a housing, I'm not sure I'd upgrade to the D200. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ummm James - when have you EVER passed on an upgrade

Personally i won't be upgrading any time soon. My D70 is good enough for what i do (magazine stuff and pics to the agency) and until i am told otherwise there is no reason for me to do so. Its just too dang expensive to do so as you not only need to get the camera but also the housing. Sorry but for me it is not an issue of my camera is bigger, newer, faster etc than yours. If it can do the job i need it to do then i will continue to use it until it no longer works...and then i go back to my Nik V and shoot WA only...

I upgraded to a 1D2 from a Nikon D2h because of the 8.5 fps, weather sealing for lens and camera and 8 megapixels. Now I'm happy till it dies... no more upgrade for DSLR.

For video, going to HDV from DV is a natural progression. Higher resolution on almost the same form factor. Buying top of the line extends the period between upgrades. I still use the PD150 I bought in 2001. 4 year lifespan is pretty darn good. Nothing like an Arri Super 16 HS but hey!

I've always said it's the shooter and not the equipment for 95% of the time. But that 5% sure seems large whenever a new model of something is announced!

I'm going to be slightly provocative and say why I like having the latest and greatest. Those who know me, will know I am not a gear-head (well not too much of one), and am definietly driven by the pursuit of images more than the pursuit of kit. There is no denying that part of the appeal of being an UW photographer is the toy count. But for me the goal has always been the pix. And always will be.

From a commerical point of view when you are selling an image for 4 figure sums (I have not managed 5 figures for a single image, yet!) you want to be confident in the repro quality. If you shoot the best pro models you can be (all the tests show that the D2X and 1DS Mk2 are pretty indistinguishable at low ISO and both are wellahead of 35mm slides and close to medium format trannies on land, and medium format is a pain in the a**e underwater). Furthermore, I don't want to be saying to an ad agency, thanks for the $XXXX dollars, but by the way don't print it bigger than 30" because it won't look good! The latest pro bodies give you confidence that your image quality is as good as or better than anybody elses.

The high Megapixel cameras also mean that you are taken seriously when you arrive at dive centres (although maybe all DSLRs have this effect, especially if they are in metal housings). And then if you are nice, don't damage the environment, get to know the dive staff and then show them some of your shots - they will usually do everything they can to help you out. Knowing you are a creating useful stuff.

Also, throughout my life I have always performed best when I am feeling confident in my ability, and feel others respect me too. Having a pro camera (or new model) does give me extra confidence (I think my images improved noticeably with the D2X this year). And when I turn up a resort, with a flashy camera, where nobody knows me, it spurs me on to prove it and produce great images.

Finally, I always shoot with AF, and I know that having the best AF I can allows me to get shots that others really can't. I know what camera I have and I know what camera other photographers have. I know the strengths of my kit and I will try and take pictures that I know they cannot. It means my portfolio will stand out.

But in reality I am like most others here. It isn't the gear it the photographer that matters. I raise the above points for the sake of discussion, and I guess I am happy to bring them up because I'm not sure I really believe them myself!

Alex

Yes, a better AF is what will drive me to upgrade....someday, when i also get that 5 figure shot...

As for video, i have upgraded to HD, that is because i want to sell footage commercially and in this day and age that is the way things are going. I need to have those 30 mating mantas on HD! at least that is what i tell myself.

On the stills side i can get it on slide (like i did this last year) or with the D70 and still be able to sell...

Hi All,

As a newcomer to video i started by reading video mags and bought as good as i could afford. Apparently a big mistake as it was a "holiday camera" as one pro told me on a trip and went on to fill me in on 3chip, filters and better housings etc... Obviously then i was not clued up and there was limited reveiws 3 years ago for underwater camera set-ups..

So i saved up again forsaking decent diving trips for another year and bought a TRV950...Then i was going to upgrade to a PD150 then the PD170 came about so that was another wait. Now its high-def but as my next project involves cold quarries, do i get a better low light cam as the PD170 or just hire one for now and wait... AAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH !!!!!!..

I hear all the lovely stories about the Red Sea, Galapago's, Bonaire, Costa rica..etc, etc.. I might just say sod it go and see all the greats film them on my old set-up.. Maybe that's better than having the latest camera/housing still in their box on my shelf because i cannot afford to go anywhere with them.. Or bank loan myself to the max and panic later..????

Dilemma, dilemma...

Dive safe

DeanB..

Great topic for discussion.

I am like Mike (yes, we are both Canadian) in that I am happy with the camera I have for my purposes. I changed from the Original Rebel to the 20D more for a topside reason and the fps rate, not the MP.

I am not a gear head either and agree with what Alex is saying too. When I worked in a ski shop years back the advice that was given to me in selling was to sell the person the right equipment for their needs or, anticipated needs. Alex has the right camera for his needs based on the confidence level if helps provide.

Yes, I would like to have a full frame camera for WA but, also don't want to sacrifice the fps rate. So will I get the 5D right now, no. I might get the 5D version 3 but for now I am happy. The nice thing about the 20D is it also lends itself to having 2 bodies. One ready for topside and one housed. A nice back-up too. Something I am looking at doing right now.

Are having 2 20D's better than 1 5D and still have money for beverages on the trip?

We've seen the digital revolution and the latest evolution with the D200. My latest thoughts:

1) Pixel count is way overated. It takes 4 times the pixel count to double resolution. While the steps in my camera purchases from 1 to 3 to 6 and now to 12, the latest jump from 6 to 12 is the least impressive. Sure, James mentions cropping, what I call digital slop, but that's the exception, not the rule. Upsizing has gotten so much easier.

2) Bye, bye film SLRs. I was on a long waiting list for the $2000 D100. While it was a wonderful tool, it was a far cry from the F100. Much was given up. This new D200 now catches the DSLR back up to the film SLR in terms of functionality, at least for the most part.

The biggest change I've seen is features and values, again as opposed to megapixels. My former $1000 CP5000 takes forever to fire compared to a $280 Canon. We used to shoot in just JPEG or TIFF. The first time I used the D100 for sports, I kept stopping and looking at it to see if it was still working (buffer was full!), duh, 3 fps for .....like 1 second, then .........snore.

The need to upgrade? The D100 just went on a land trip, where it functioned flawlessly and took many a fine photo. Those with D100's or D70's really don't need to upgrade unless they are seriously missing something the D200 has.

My D100 is about to make another instructor a very happy photography at a very happy price.

To be honest, if I hadn't already bought the D2X, I would have chosen the D200 over the D2X. I'm doing more camera carrying and street stuff. The D2X is definitely undcomfortable to carry around vs. other models.

I think the biggest benefactors of the D200 are those who are buying a DSLR for the first time. Tremendous bang for the buck and lacking in almost nothing.

I think a lot has changed in the last 3 years or so and the changes wont be quite so huge from here on. The jump for wee amateurs like me is pretty huge going from say a fairly low cost 2MP camera to a low cost 6MP camera. Film camera prices have plummeted inside the last few years for good reason, I bought a MM2EX as a backup and its become almost a boat anchor reselling wise inside 12 months.

I dont expect to see a similar leap in practical quality over the next 3 years for the same kind of price. Its a bit like computers, my current PC is 3 years old but practically speaking little different from what you can buy now.

I cant speak about DSLRs of course but at my end of the market its been amazing how much things have improved in the very short time Ive been doing photography.

Otara